This is a good example of why outrage cycles are so ineffective: their rhythm has nothing to do with how institutions work over time. The Trump admin issued a lunatic rule; it prompted outrage (BOO!) and, more to the point, concerted coordinated pushback from university systems (YES!); the rule was rescinded (YAY!)); and here we are again, but with a more limited scope — only new students. When the rule was first issued, the sub-rosa response across academia was to say, quietly, “OK, we’ll have some nominal, unenforceable in-person requirement so we can comply.” But that furtive, fragmented response, which incrementally raises the risk for everyone involved, is mostly a symptom of the kinds of disconnect that make US higher ed so vulnerable. If faculty at various scales (program, dept, etc) had said fine, WORK TO RULE, it would have mobilized the financial pressure schools are under in a better way — not as a downward threat to faculty but as am upward threat by faculty that their schools need to step up more publicly and aggressively. It also could have helped to build the kind of solidarity and new pathways the entire sector desperately needs. That’s why it’s important to think again about how outrage functions: venting on social media is, in part, a way of diffusing and defusing anger that should be directed at and within these institutions.
But it’s summer.